8

Let $B_4$ be a 4-disc, $X:=S^1\times B_4$, $\partial X=S^1\times S^3$ and $f: X\to\mathbb{R}^3$ be continuous, such that $f|_{\partial X}: (s_1, s_2)\mapsto H(s_2)$, where $H: S^3\to S^2\subseteq\mathbb{R}^3$ is the Hopf fibration. How to show that $H_1(f^{-1}(0))\stackrel{i_*}{\longrightarrow} H_1(X)$ is surjective (and is it necessarily true)?

(I appologize that it looks so technical but it is closely connected to a deeper problem: if I know a sphere-valued map $f$ on the boundary of some space $X$, then the zero set of possible $\mathbb{R}^n$-valued extensions correspond to solutions of $1$-perturbations (wrt. some norm) of the equation $f(x)=0$. My goal is to describe the topology of the solution set(s). In this example, does it need to contain a nontrivial circle?)

Peter Franek
  • 11,522

2 Answers2

2

It seems that the result is not true, at least if $H_1$ means singular homology.

The basic idea of the counterexample is to construct $f$ so that $f^{-1}(\{0\})$ doesn't contain an ordinary circle, but something like a Warsaw circle instead. This leaves open the possibility that the result might still be true for some other homology theory (Čech homology? Strong homology?) or if we restrict to a nicer class of functions (Morse functions?)

Let $X=A\cup B$, where $$A=\left\{(x,y)\in S^1\times D^4\mid \|y\|\geq\frac12\right\}$$ and $$B=\left\{(x,y)\in S^1\times D^4\mid\|y\|\leq\frac12\right\}.$$

Now, for $(x,y)\in A$, define $$f(x,y)=\left(\frac{3+x_1}2\|y\|-\frac{1+x_1}2\right)H\left(\frac{y}{\|y\|}\right),$$ where $x_1$ is the first coordinate of $x=(x_1,x_2)\in\mathbb R^2$. Note that $f$ is continuous on $A$. If $\|y\|=1,$ we have $f(x,y)=H(y)$, as required. Furthermore, if $(x,y)\in A\cap B$, i.e. if $\|y\|=\frac12$, we have $$f(x,y)=\frac{1-x_1}4H\left(\frac y{\|y\|}\right).$$

We proceed to define $f(x,y)$ for $(x,y)\in B$. First, define $q:(0,\infty)\to\mathbb R^4$ by $$q(t)=\left(\frac{\sin\frac1{t}}{2|\sin\frac1t|-8},0,0,0\right)$$ and $\phi:(0,\infty)\times\mathbb R^4\to\mathbb R^4$ by $$\phi(t,y)=y+q(t)-2\|y\|q(t).$$

The function $\phi$ has the nice properties that $\|\phi(t,y)\|\leq\frac12$ if $\|y\|\leq\frac12$ and $\phi(t,y)=y$ for $\|y\|=\frac12$. Also, for each fixed $t$, $y\mapsto\phi(t,y)$ is bijective. (Edit: Details provided at the end.) Furthermore, $$\phi\left(t,\left(\frac18\sin\frac1t,0,0,0\right)\right)=0.$$

Now, define $$f(x,y)=\frac{1-x_1}2 \|\phi(1-x_1,y)\|H\left(\frac{\phi(1-x_1,y)}{\|\phi(1-x_1,y)\|}\right).$$ Note that this is undefined for $x_1=1$ but it can be continuously extended by defining $$f((1,0),y)=0.$$ This defines $f(x,y)$ for $(x,y)\in B$. For this to make sense, we have to verify that the two definitions agree for $(x,y)\in A\cap B$. So, let $\|y\|=\frac12$. Then, $$f(x,y)=\frac{1-x_1}2\|y\|H\left(\frac y{\|y\|}\right),$$ by our observation that $\phi(t,y)=y$ for $\|y\|=\frac12$. This means that the two definitions indeed agree on $A\cap B$, so $f$ is well-defined.

Finally, we compute $f^{-1}(\{0\})$. First, for $(x,y)\in A$, $f(x,y)=0$ is possible only if $$\frac{3+x_1}2\|y\|-\frac{1+x_1}2=0,$$ which means that $$\|y\|=\frac{1+x_1}{3+x_1}=1-\frac2{3+x_1}\leq 1-\frac12=\frac12.$$ So, it is sufficient to find all $(x,y)\in B$ such that $f(x,y)=0$.

We have already observed that $\{(1,0)\}\times D^4\subseteq f^{-1}(\{0\})$, so assume $x_1\neq 1$. Then, $f(x,y)=0$ implies that $$\|\phi(1-x_1,y)\|=0$$ or eqivalently, that $$\phi(1-x_1,y)=0.$$ By our observations about $\phi$, this holds precisely if $$y=\left(\frac18\sin\frac1{1-x_1},0,0,0\right).$$ In other words, $f^{-1}(\{0\})$ is a Warsaw circle, with the usual interval at the end replaced by a $4$-disk. Therefore, $H_1(f^{-1}(\{0\})$ is trivial and we are done.


Added: Here are some more details about the function $\phi$, to make things easier to read. First, observe that $$\|q(t)\|=\frac{|\sin\frac1t|}{8-2|\sin\frac1t|}=-\frac12+\frac4{8-2\sin\frac1t}\leq -\frac12+\frac46=\frac16.$$ We claim that for any vector $q\in\mathbb R^4$ such that $\|q\|<\frac12$, the function $\psi:\mathbb R^4\to\mathbb R^4$, defined by $$\psi(y)=y+q-2\|y\|q$$ is bijective, takes the $4$-disk $\{y\mid\|y\|\leq\frac12\}$ into itself and is equal to the identity when restricted to the $3$-sphere $\{y\mid\|y\|=\frac12\}$. The last of these is obvious.

To see that the second last is true, take $\|y\|\leq\frac12$ and compute: $$\big\|y+(1-2\|y\|)q\big\|\leq\|y\|+(1-2\|y\|)\|q\|\leq\|y\|+(1-2\|y\|)\frac12=\frac12.$$

It remains to show that $\psi$ is bijective. Surjectivity is left to the reader, since we don't really use it anywhere. Injectivity is verified by a simple calculation: $$y_1+q-2\|y_1\|q=y_2+q-2\|y_2\|q$$ is equivalent to $$y_1-y_2=2(\|y_1\|-\|y_2\|)q.$$ If the two norms are equal, we have $y_1=y_2$ and we are done, otherwise the equation is equivalent to $$\frac{y_1-y_2}{\|y_1\|-\|y_2\|}=2q.$$ After taking norms, this becomes $$2\|q\|=\frac{\|y_1-y_2\|}{\big|\|y_1\|-\|y_2\|\big|}\geq 1$$ by the triangle inequality. This contradicts the fact that $\|q\|<\frac12$.

One last observation: $$\psi\left(-\frac{q}{1+2\|q\|}\right)=0.$$ This translates to the fact that $$\phi\left(t,\left(\frac18\sin\frac1t,0,0,0\right)\right)=0.$$ Thus, all properties of $\phi$ we needed are verified.

Dejan Govc
  • 17,007
  • 1
    I did not check the argument, but I think something along these lines will work. In the other hand, if we use smooth maps which are submersion over 0 then it is easy to see that the problem has positive answer. In view if thus, the guess about Chech cohomology is probably correct. – Moishe Kohan May 31 '14 at 15:57
  • @studious: if I use smooth maps transversal to zero, then you can easilly see the problem has positive answer? Any hint, please? (and does it work if you replace Hopf by nontrivial $S^{n+1}\to S^n$?) I somehow can neither prove it nor find a counter-example.. The hard part seems to be why can $f^{-1}(0)$ not wind around the circle more than once.. – Peter Franek May 31 '14 at 18:27
  • @Dejan Govc: I still need to go over the details but believe the main idea works. Thanks for your time! Will be gratefull for some hint on the "regular" case (transversal maps to zero or Cech cohomology) as well... – Peter Franek Jun 01 '14 at 06:42
  • 1
    @PeterFranek: Thanks for the interesting problem. I haven't really looked into the "regular" case, but if I think of something useful, I'll let you know. – Dejan Govc Jun 01 '14 at 10:02
0

I think the result is not true.

First, note that since $B^4$ is perfectly normal, for some $\epsilon < 1/2$, we can find a function $g \colon B^4 \rightarrow [0,\epsilon/2]$ which is $0$ along the boundary $S^3$, $0$ at the two points $\left(\pm \frac{1}{2},0,0,0\right)$, $\epsilon/2$ on a small ball of radius $\epsilon$ around the origin, and otherwise not $0$ or $\epsilon/2$ (by an extended version of Urysohn's Lemma).

Now let $R_{\pi} \colon B^4 \rightarrow B^4$ be the rotation by $\pi$ around the first two coordinates. Then the function $h \colon B^4 \rightarrow [0,1]$ given by $\frac{1}{2}(g + g\circ R_{\pi}$ satisfies the same properties of $g$, but is also $R_{\pi}$-invariant.

Consider the function $\widetilde{f} \colon \mathbb{R} \times B^4 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$ given by sending $(\theta,v=(v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4))$ to $$\frac{\|v+(1/2\cos \theta,1/2\sin\theta,0,0)\| \cdot \|v - (1/2\cos\theta,1/2\sin\theta,0,0)\|}{\sqrt{\frac{5}{4}-v_1\cos\theta-v_2\sin\theta}\cdot \sqrt{\frac{5}{4}+v_1\cos\theta+v_2\sin\theta}}H\left(\frac{f \cdot (0,0,0,1) + v}{\|f \cdot (0,0,0,1) + v\|}\right).$$ It is easy to check that this is well-defined (i.e. the denominators are never zero and the input to $H$ has norm $1$). Further, when $\|v\| = 1$, it is easy to check that this map is just the Hopf map $H$. And finally, this is invariant under $\theta \mapsto \theta + \pi$, so this descends to a map $$f \colon X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^3$$ satisfying the necessary conditions. However, $f^{-1}(0)$ consists of points of the form $$(\theta, \pm(1/2\cos\theta,1/2\sin\theta,0,0))$$ as $\theta$ varies. In $X$, this is a circle which wraps around the $S^1$-coordinate twice, and in particular, we have $i_* \colon H_1(f^{-1}(0)) \rightarrow H_1(X)$ is a doubling map $\mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}$, and is therefore not surjective.

KSackel
  • 710
  • 8
  • 19
  • The idea looks interesting, but I can't get the details. Where did you use $h$? In the $\tilde{f}$ formula, what is $f$ and why is $|f\cdot (0,0,0,1)+v|$ nonzero? – Peter Franek May 11 '14 at 01:40
  • You're right, the proof is wrong. ($f$ was meant to be $h$, but $|h(0,0,0,1)+v|$ will be zero somewhere). In thinking about the problem, I had found that I could show each slice ${\theta} \times B^4$ had to have some zero set, but couldn't figure out why these needed to piece together to find a loop which winds around the $S^1$ coordinate once. – KSackel May 16 '14 at 14:54
  • Yes, I can construct a double-circle, if the boundary map were two-times Hopf, but as it stands, it seems to me that $i_*$ really is surjective. But don't know why. Anyway, thanks for sharing your ideas! – Peter Franek May 24 '14 at 14:18